Arguments for and against codified constitution:

FOR:

 Clarity and Certainty - a codified constitution would allow for it to be more accessible, clear and not open for
interpretation.
 Attract Reverence and Public Loyalty - this allows for it to be deeply entrenched.
 Greater Checks and Balances on the Executive and Legislature - protection of rights and set legal limits on the
crown and parliament, protection of local and regional government, establishing an independent judiciary. Lord
Scarman argues that these aren’t protected under the UK Constitution. Stronger safeguard.
 Strengthen Democracy - a written democracy could allow for democratic principles to flourish; e.g. to be a PM,
you must be ELECTED.

AGAINST:

 A codified constitution does not necessarily protect human rights - it’s worthless, without checks and controls
on the executive. Doesn’t necessarily promote a democracy.
 A codified constitution lacks flexibility - the US constitution struggles to keep up with today's society. Made in
1787. There is a complicated procedure to amend the constitution, need to have super majorities in congress and
senate.
 There are practical challenges of having a written constitution - who is going to draft it, where are they from,
what is the expense, will it protect human rights.
 A written constitution could give judges too much power - key decisions made by unelected judges; ruling
everything either constitutional or unconstitutional - e.g. racial segregation being unconstitutional, right to same-
sex marriage, abortion, gun laws. There are concerns that judges have no democratic mandate.